* Federal appeals court rejects case over child support
* Man sues, saying ex-girlfriend said she was unable to get pregnant
* Court called case frivolous

LANSING, Michigan (AP) -- A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision released Tuesday, agreed with a lower court judge that Matthew Dubay's suit was frivolous.

Dubay, 25, had said ex-girlfriend Lauren Wells knew he didn't want to have a child and assured him repeatedly she couldn't get pregnant because of a medical condition.

He argued that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.

U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Bay City disagreed, rejecting Dubay's argument that Michigan's paternity law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause because it didn't extend reproductive rights to men.

The suit was prepared for Dubay by the National Center for Men in Old Bethpage, New York., which dubbed it "Roe v. Wade for Men." The nickname drew objections from women's rights organizations.

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents.

Dubay sued the Saginaw County prosecutor and Wells in March, contesting an order to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born to Wells in 2005. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox intervened in the case and argued for its dismissal.

Men's reproductive rights case, dismissed by District Court judge,
now brought to sixth circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

ORAL ARGUMENT IN CINCINNATI ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2007

SEPTEMBER 4, 2007

In March of 2006, Matt Dubay, 26, a computer programmer from Saginaw Michigan, filed suit in a United States district court in Michigan, demanding the right of reproductive choice, to right to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. The National Center For Men backed Dubay and dubbed his lawsuit, Roe vs. Wade for MenTM.

The state of Michigan had forced Dubay to pay support for a child he never intended to bring into the world. Dubay had insisted that the child’s mother assured him she could not get pregnant and, also, that she knew he did not want to have a child with her. Mr. Dubay asked U.S. District Court judge, David M. Lawson, to apply the principles Roe vs. Wade, to men. Dubay argued that he should not have been forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy, since no woman could have been forced to pay that price. In the Brief we made this argument for him:

The practical intent and effect of Roe vs. Wade was to permit a woman to engage in intimate sexual activity while, at the same time, choosing not to be a parent, even in the event of a contraceptive failure… that is the fundamental right created by "Roe." The Supreme Court specifically rejected the argument, as put forth by Wade, that a woman could make a procreative choice by abstaining from sex. Clearly, the Court intended for a woman to have a private, intimate life, without sacrificing the right to procreative choice. By its very nature, this is a fundamental right that must apply regardless of biology. It cannot survive both as a fundamental right and as a limited right, limited only to people with internal reproductive systems.

Last July, Judge Lawson summarily dismissed Dubay's suit. In a decision that reeked of unnecessary and inappropriate sarcasm, Lawson wrote, "[Dubay] had difficulty accepting the financial consequences of his conduct so the state came to his assistance." Very funny. In our view, the judge's sarcasm revealed a sexist bias.

Had the judge conducted a full and thoughtful hearing and then decided against Matt Dubay, that would have been discouraging for us, but that didn't happen here. Judge Lawson figuratively slammed the courthouse door in Dubay's face and then shamefully ordered him to pay the state's legal fees. The judge's decision will likely have a chilling effect on any citizen who wants to fight for his or her civil rights in a federal court.

On May 14, 2007, Matt Dubay's lawyer filed an appeal with the sixth circuit United States Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, asking that Matt be given his day in court. Oral arguments will be made to the Court on September 10, 2007 at 1:00 pm.

Roe vs. Wade (for women only) needs 21st century renovation. The issues raised by Dubay warrant thorough and careful analysis on the merits, not a flippant and summary dismissal.

Dubbing their case 'Roe vs Wade for Men' is a tactical and public relations error, in my opinion. It creates the impression they are advocates for abortion.

The 'sexist' accusation against the (male) judge is interesting. Some men do indeed appear to hate their own gender, usually as a result of being brainwashed at college (by, for example, leftist forms of feminism). Whether this particular judge falls into that category I have no idea, but it is possible.

Originally posted by financeguy
The 'sexist' accusation against the (male) judge is interesting. Some men do indeed appear to hate their own gender, usually as a result of being brainwashed at college (by, for example, leftist forms of feminism).

I always love your male discrimination theories.

But at least you are consistent with other conservatives in making higher education the root of this evil.

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen He argued that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.

But according to him she stated that she wasn't capable of getting pregnant. Who knows if he's telling the truth their or not, but I don't think you can put all the blame on the guy here. What if he wanted to use a condom, but for whatever reason she was against it and uses the "what do you not trust me when I say that I can't get pregnant" line? Maybe I'm off base here, but I think it goes beyond the he should have worn a condom and into the complexities of relationships.

But according to him she stated that she wasn't capable of getting pregnant. Who knows if he's telling the truth their or not, but I don't think you can put all the blame on the guy here. What if he wanted to use a condom, but for whatever reason she was against it and uses the "what do you not trust me when I say that I can't get pregnant" line? Maybe I'm off base here, but I think it goes beyond the he should have worn a condom and into the complexities of relationships.

But from a legal standpoint, none of this matters. The law isn't there to act as a relationship therapist, it's here to protect the innocent child.

And as a man you should be smart enough to know that anytime you have sex there is a possibility of pregnancy, even with birth control. You are never absolved from this...

But according to him she stated that she wasn't capable of getting pregnant. Who knows if he's telling the truth their or not, but I don't think you can put all the blame on the guy here. What if he wanted to use a condom, but for whatever reason she was against it and uses the "what do you not trust me when I say that I can't get pregnant" line? Maybe I'm off base here, but I think it goes beyond the he should have worn a condom and into the complexities of relationships.

Disagree. Bottom line for me is, if you don't want a baby, use at least 2 forms of birth control. I'm married and if I REALLY REALLY didn't want to have a baby, I'd still use a second method of birth control. Is she an ass for lying to him? Yes. But it's not like she tied his hands and refused to let him wear a condom. Like BVS said, the complexities of people's relationships aren't for our courts.

What it comes down to for me is there is a hell of a lot of difference between carrying (and I don't mean in your arms or in a sling etc.) and giving birth to a baby, and just having to pay child support.

The first is a life altering event. The second is an inconvenience (granted it can be a big inconvenience).

Apparently their relationship consisted of dating for only three months, and what she actually told him was that she was not only infertile, but also using contraception "as an extra layer of protection." So it's hard not to see him as having been more than a little imprudent--infertile women don't generally go around freely flashing that fact to men they're casually dating as an incentive to enjoy condom-free sex (not to mention the other good reasons to use condoms in such a situation), and it ought to seem at the very least suspicious for a woman to claim she knows she's infertile, yet uses contraception 'just in case.' That said, I do have some sympathy for his situation. But as BVS pointed out, legally the bottom line is that parents (of either sex) are financially responsible for their existing children, whether they're the custodial parent or not. And that's a legally distinct matter from a woman's right not to continue with a pregnancy (hence the point made in the linked opinion that it's without merit to argue that treating men and women as separate categories of persons with regard to pregnancy constitutes discrimination against men).